Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-04
TIE SUPREME COURT.

\. II. Willie, chief justice; J. W. stayton snd
L. L. Gaines, associate justices; q. :. Morse,
clerk; N. VI. johnson, baiiitf
Jane G. Schifllet ct ais and T. L. doom
VS.. c. Morelle ct ais, from RunGels; Opin-
ion by Gaines, "A. j.
This was = contention concerning g
tract Of land by Jane G. SChitllet ct ais
against appellant Odom and appellees.
OdUm and the plaintiffs claim the land
under John MCCreary, IS assignee of the
John Early headlight. AppelIee5 claim
as tenants in common, some as heirs and
Others as grantees of heirs Of The original
grantee OF the land.
There was verdict and Judgment in
favor of appellees against OdOm and
plaintiffs below. The objection that the
verdict is special il not sustained by the
facts. The whole case rests upon wheth-
eT or not there was g transfer by Early to
McCTesry. Error is assigned in ruling
on. part of the evidence of the witness
Besser, administrator of MCCreary's eS-
tate. The evidence ruled out was to the
effect that Besser had examined certain
of McCreary's paper, which had accident
ally been burned, which, as far IS
he could Judge of papers of the
time they were executed he considered as
vesting o good title Ia McCresry. This
was q correct ruling. For while the
predicate was laid to introduce secondary
evidence of the lost instruments, yet it
was not allowed to give an opinion of the
suficiency of the papers TO convey the title
he could only state facts. Appellan,
offered in evidence certified copies OF
records from Washington county the land
being in Runnels, of bond for title from
Early to one Steele, and from Steele to
MCCreary which were recorded in 1887.
The court excluded these copies which
was assigned as error. When these
papers we're recorded the headlight had
not issued.
The statuteIpermitting the Introduction
of copies of records refers Only
to such papers as were required
to be recorded and properly &C
knowledged, etc. The bond for title
abov- was merely personally beforo the
headlight issued and was not required TO
be recorded under the act in force in 1887
The law had designated no particular
county where the papers were to be re-
corded, and as it was intended to record
them where the land was situated, this
could not be found out before
the certificate was located. The
ruling of the court was not error.
The assignment of error, in the refusal Of
the Judge to charge that if it was found
that transfer had been made by Early to
McCreary or anyone else by psrol or
otherwise, is not well taken, because the
as far as they could be
given, covered the objection, and, furth-
ermore, the jury found there had been no
transfer by Early, either written or
verbal.
Appellants also asked instructions that
One having q land certificate before loCa- |
ton claiming to own same, etc, is prima
.scie owner of it, which were properly |
refused. Smith VS.. Sublett, % Tex, |
I73. We find no error, and the judg- |
nent is affirmed.
Texas and Pacific Railway Company VS.. |
Grace Richards, from Grayson county; |
opinion by Stayton, Al. This was q
suit brought by appellee, minor, who |
resided in Louisiana, to recover damages |
Tor injuries resulting in the death of her |
father. The action is brought to recover |
such damages as the father might nave !
recovered had he not died and not to |
for injuries resulting to her from |
the death of her father, which is IN force |
in Texas and several other states.
The sole right appellee has to recover |
Is based upon the Louisiana statutes, and |
the question arises, can it be enforced in |
this state? The rights under it did not
exist before its passage even in Louisiana
and as it is not operative here, cen it be
enforced? In this state common law OBJ
tains where not inconsistent with our
statutes, and under the common law the
right sought to De enforced in appel
lees petition is denied. We know
OF no law to authorize a.
state to give effect to laws of other states